U.S. plans gulf build up after Iraq exit

Believe or not; I think that this happens to be a very good idea.

Via NYT:

MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.

The plans, under discussion for months, gained new urgency after President Obama’s announcement this month that the last American soldiers would be brought home from Iraq by the end of December. Ending the eight-year war was a central pledge of his presidential campaign, but American military officers and diplomats, as well as officials of several countries in the region, worry that the withdrawal could leave instability or worse in its wake.

After unsuccessfully pressing both the Obama administration and the Iraqi government to permit as many as 20,000 American troops to remain in Iraq beyond 2011, the Pentagon is now drawing up an alternative.

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The size of the standby American combat force to be based in Kuwait remains the subject of negotiations, with an answer expected in coming days. Officers at the Central Command headquarters here declined to discuss specifics of the proposals, but it was clear that successful deployment plans from past decades could be incorporated into plans for a post-Iraq footprint in the region.

In short, this will keep the Saudis happy and Iran at bay. Which will keep gas prices down and oil flowing out of that region. Obama might be a green energy guy and all, but he is no fool. He knows how far off all that technology is, so he’s covering his bases here.

Some on the right might rattle their chains about this one; I will not. I know what he is doing here, and it’s a very smart move. I commend him for it.

Video: Pamela Geller’s banned speech In Texas

This comes via the Lady herself:

For those of you who do not like the idea of posting what Pamela has to say; I have two things to say —- first, as Herman Cain would say, “I does not care.”  Also, I would say to those who would have a problem with me posting this video, I would politely ask you to go see Helen Waite and ask for directions.

God Bless America.

More of that “religion of peace” in action

Click here, here, here, and here.

Just a little taste of what you are going to read:

An opening statement is not evidence, merely a preview of the case the prosecution will mount in coming weeks based on testimony, forensics, wiretaps, documents and a plethora of photos. The crux of it: That parents and 18-year-old brother planned and executed the murders from outrage over the intolerable, the defiance of daughters and the alliance with them of a woman treated for years as a burden and a slave.

A disgrace and shame to their family, though, for behaviour unbecoming to Afghan [Muslim] females — the boyfriends and the disobedience, the brazen disrespect for traditions and refusal to wear the hijab — violations of decorum so grievous that they needed to be killed, eliminated, to purify family honour, their “treachery’’ insupportable.

Mass murder committed, a court heard Thursday, by the mother and father and brother of the sisters, homicides staged to look like an accident during a family vacation, with Zainab at the wheel, on one of her furtive joyrides.

Mohammad Shafia, Tooba Mohammad Yahya and their son Hamed Mohammed Shafia have all pleaded not guilty to four counts each of first-degree murder. Their jury trial began here Thursday with a 90-minute opening statement from Crown Attorney Laurie Lacelle that left observers in the courtroom stunned over details finally revealed and allegations of a diabolical plot that defy imagination.

From a wiretapped conversation Shafia had with Tooba and Hamed, 20 days after the bodies were discovered, Shafia in a fury recalling the revealing cellphone pictures of Zainab and Shahar: “Curse God on both of them. Is that what a daughter should be? Would a daughter be such a whore? May the devil s–t on their graves.”

And later, not long before the trio was arrested in Montreal, Shafia tells Hamed, as Lacelle quoted from another wiretap transcript: “Even if they hoist me up on to the gallows, nothing is more dear to me than my honour.”

To his wife, Shafia allegedly assured that the right actions had been taken: “I say to myself, you did well. Were they to come back to life, I would do it again. No Tooba, they messed up. There was no other way. They were treacherous. They betrayed us immensely. There can be no betrayal worse than this. They committed treason on themselves. They betrayed humankind. They betrayed Islam. They betrayed our religion. They betrayed everything.”

From the sisters, there appears no words were left behind. But Rona wrote in her diary, the Crown told the jury, what she was thinking, fearing, in the weeks, even years, before her death, anxieties she also shared with siblings overseas when she was able to get out of the house and make phone calls.

This was the murder weapon:

This was the family:

These are the people who did it:

All in the name of Islam.

Now you tell me that Islam is a Religion of peace? I call you a liar.

(H/T to Pamela)

Cross-posted @ Alexandra

Obama Administration bungled Iraq withdrawal negotiations

Yesterday, I wrote about the Obama Administration pulling all of our troops out of Iraq.  Despite the fact that it is not entirely true, it was also recorded that it was not the Obama Administrations choice, but Iraqi Governments decision.  Well, this is why and I will let Foreign Policy tell the story, and I will get to the good part:

In July, Panetta urged Iraqi leaders to, “Dammit, make a decision” about the U.S. troop extension. In August, he told reporters that, “My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes.'” On Oct. 17, he was still pushing for the extension and said, “At the present time I’m not discouraged because we’re still in negotiations with the Iraqis.”

Sullivan was one of 40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would “leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States.”

She said that the administration’s negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.

“From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns,” said Sullivan.

As recently as August, Maliki’s office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.”

The main Iraqi opposition party Iraqiya, led by former U.S. ally and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, decided to tie that vote to two non-related issues. It said they would not vote for the troop extension unless Maliki agreed give them control of a high-level policy council and let them choose the minister of defense from their ranks. Maliki wasn’t about to do either.

“It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn’t going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him,” Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. “There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late.”

“The actions don’t match the words here,” said Sullivan. “It’s in the administration’s interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement.”

So what’s the consequence of the failed negotiations? One consequence could be a security vacuum in Iraq that will be filled by Iran.

“It’s particularly troubling because having some sort of presence there would have really facilitated our policy vis-a-vis the Iranians and what’s going on in Syria. The Iranian influence is going up in Iraq,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It makes it harder for us to play our cards, and that’s a real setback. We’ve spent a lot of blood and treasure in Iraq. And these days, stability in that region is not what it used to be.”

So there you have it folks, when Iraq goes to pot and Iran fills that leadership vacuum and starts war with the Saudi’s; and your gas goes over 10 dollars a gallon — you will know who to blame.  Let me give you hint, it will not be Bush.

Of course, this points to a President and President Administration that is much in over its head and is clueless of how to deal with the Middle East.  Something that we bloggers, who rejected the Democratic Party utopian vision of “Hope and Change” said in 2008, when that floppy eared jack ass mounted the pulpit outside the White House and proceeded to royally butcher the oath of office.  We knew it then and we know it now.  We will also know it come 2012, when that socialist piece of human excrement leaves the oval office for the last time; when he is totally defeated by someone who actually knows how to be a leader.

Other Blogs: , American Spectator, americanthinker.com and National Review

BREAKING NEWS: Obama announces all troops to leave Iraq by end of 2011

This should be really interesting:

The Story:

The Obama administration has decided to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year after failing to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government that would have left several thousand troops there for special operations and training.

President Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spoke Friday morning to cement that agreement in a scheduled telephone call.

The two leaders also agreed to continue informally discussing the need for and the terms of a U.S. military presence in Iraq into next year, people familiar with the agreement said. As a result, the only U.S. military presence that will remain in Iraq after the end of the year will be the roughly 150 troops needed to protect the large U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and its thousands of American diplomats and other personnel, as well as provide training related to new military sales and other tasks.

“The rest of our troops in Iraq will come home at the end of the year,” Obama said Friday at the White House. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

via All U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 – The Washington Post.

I have some very mixed feelings on this little news story. In fact, my entire basis for returning to writing since my childhood days; as I was very good in English in school – and for my foray into the world of political blogging in the first place — was this subject right here —- Iraq.

As my about me page does say, I was not always a blogger on the right. I still do not consider myself a “Republican,” although I do find myself voting for them now, more than I do Democrats. This is because the Democrats are on the wrong side of the argument, polices that the Democrats have tried have failed miserably, as bloggers as myself predicted that they would. However, when I came into this thing called “blogging,” I was not in the camp of the Conservative thought. I came into this thing called blogging with fierce anger at President George W. Bush.

I was right then about George W. Bush and I still feel that I am; however, I am a bit more educated into what the motivating forces were behind the invasion of Iraq and I no longer believe the idiotic nonsense peddled by the far left about Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Put simply, we invaded Iraq, based upon some very bad intelligence from Germany. There was not plan to lie to the American people, so that we could invade Iraq to please Israel, which is what the far left believes in this Country. Which is a talking point that is rooted in fallacy and in an Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel bias that exists on the far left and in some quarters of the far right as well.

The main underlining factor in the decision to go into Iraq was a foreign policy stance that I feel is one of the worst ever conceived by man — Wilsonian foreign policy. I believed that the day I pressed the “Create Blog” button over on blogger.com to create my first blog originally called “The Populist Moderate” and I still believe that today. Although, at the time, I did not know what it was called, I just knew something was not right and I felt the need to speak out about it.

AllahPundit over at HotAir.com notes some very interesting ramifications over this decision by the President’s decision to pull our troops out of Iraq. The political angle is that Obama actually wants to be reelected in 2012. Not that this will help him at all; the liberal left still will not vote again for him, because the economy is still in the proverbial toilet. I said back in 2010 that we were just making it a little harder for Iran to invade and overthrow Iraq; and it appears that I was at least partially correct. Like AllahPundit said, with this new terrorist plot being uncovered against an official of the Saudi Government, it looks like Iraq might be the new battleground for a proxy war between Iran and the Saudi Government.

Overall, it essentially looks as if Obama decided that if he could not get what he wanted from the Iraqi Government; that he essentially said, “Screw them, and let them deal with their own problems.” Which at first glance, might be a good thing, but when you really look at it, it does not look good at all. All the world would need right now is a horrible war between the Saudis and the Iranians. You think the gas shortage of the 1970’s was bad; you wait until the Saudis and Iranians go to war! We will all be driving bikes everywhere. Gas and other such fuels will become luxury items quick. The only people that are most likely breathing a sigh of relief are the Syrians, who are most likely glad that this proxy war will not be fought in their backyards.

So my bottom line is this: While this might be a minor victory for the liberal left; in the long run, this is going to be major pain various places, including our wallets in the very long run.

Update: As I also suspected, but did not write about, because I was not too sure whether it was true or not — we are leaving and it is IRAQ’S idea, not ours:

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, for instance, is a hugely pro-American politician who believes Iraq’s security forces will be incapable of protecting the country without sustained foreign assistance. But in a recent interview, he refused to endorse a U.S. troop extension and instead indicated that they should leave.

“We have serious security problems in this country and serious political problems,” he said in an interview late last month at his heavily guarded compound in Baghdad. “Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn’t the answer to the problems of Iraq. It may be an answer to the problems of the U.S., but it’s definitely not the solution to the problems of my country.”

Welcome to Post-Iraq Middle East; it is going to be an interesting next few years. :shock:

Video: Islamic Street Justice

Remember what I said about Islamofacism being a problem? This right here, is what am referring to.

This comes via Facebook:

Now, do I agree with what this guy is saying? Pretty much, yes. he is correct about the moderate Muslims and their cowardice.


Wild Bill for America’s Website


Wild Bill for America’s YouTube page.

Update: Cross-posted @ Alexandria

Terror plot directly linked to Iran uncovered by the U.S. Government

This does not look good at all. :(

FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a “significant terrorist act in the United States” tied to Iran, federal officials told ABC News today.

The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an announcement today that the plan was “conceived, sponsored and was directed from Iran” by a faction of the government and called it a “flagrant” violation of U.S. and international law.

“The U.S. is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions,” Holder said. He said the White House will be meeting with federal agencies before announcing “further action” in regards to Iran.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said the arrest of a suspect in the plot shows the U.S. will “bring the full weight of [the] law to bear on those responsible” and that “any attempts on American soil will not be tolerated.”

The stunning allegations come against a backdrop of longstanding tensions between Iran and the United States and Saudi Arabia. In the last year, Saudi Arabia has attempted to build an anti-Iran alliance to push back against perceived aggression by Iran in the region.

via U.S. Says Iran-Tied Terror Plot in Washington, D.C. Disrupted – ABC News.

This basically proves my point; that Bush did not do enough after 9/11. If Bush had acted like a real President and not like a wet rag after 9/11, we would not have this sort of troubles. Although, I will admit; I have sneaky feeling that this might spark some sort of Military action. Although, I do not believe it will be of the scale and scope of the War in Iraq.

Ed Morrissey, of whom I respect, says this:

If true, would that not be an act of war?  We’re presently using drones in Pakistan and Yemen against al-Qaeda terrorist networks for plotting similar attacks, thanks to the AUMF from October 2001, even though we’re nominally allied with both nations.  If the government of Iran plotted attacks on American targets, that should require a response from the US, should it not — or do we send a signal that even attacks from actual nation-states fall under the rubric of law enforcement?

[...]

If we’re charging an official of the Iranian government with complicity or worse in this plot, then it ceases to be a law enforcement issue and becomes a military and political issue instead.  This isn’t a case of espionage but of sabotage or worse, which would be an act of war by anyone’s definition.  If we’re not willing to respond in kind, we then send a signal to hostile nation-states around the world that attacks on the US are low-risk, high-reward affairs — and we’d better get ready for an avalanche of them.

There are some who would say, “Oh, he is just being a Neoconservative!” That might be so, but he is being a Neoconservative, who happens to be right. Ron Paul and ilk are just dead wrong. when it comes to Iran, Islam and the war on terror. They might have a point on Nation Building; but on this sort of thing, Ron Paul and his mindless followers are simply wrong.

 

HOLY CHUTZPAH BATMAN!: -Al-Qaeda questions legality of U.S. killing of citizen Anwar al-Awlaki

Insty calls this CHUTZPAH.

Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has confirmed the deaths of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the young American propagandist killed alongside him in a U.S. drone strike late last month.

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would find itself hard-pressed to claim the moral high ground in the debate over the killing of Awlaki and Khan.

via Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Anwar al-Awlaki – Checkpoint Washington – The Washington Post.

This is not Chutzpah, this is just blind arrogance.

Just think, the people that did this here:

Which caused this to happen:

they also did this:

and this:

…and they want to lecture us about “freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms”… :mad:

My friends, this goes well beyond some Yiddish word for arrogance, gall, or nerve.  This backward thinking is shared by the liberal left in this Country.  In case anyone that happens to read this blog has forgotten, Al-Qaeda killed 2,977 of our citizens and injured over 6,000 of our citizens.  This was an act of war and should have been treated more so, than it was by President Bush.  What happened that day was on par with Pearl Harbor and should have resulted in the internment of all Arab citizens in this Country.  What that day should have resulted in, was the suspending of the United States Constitution and an change to the first amendment by executive order; outlawing Islam in America forever, as a political philosophy and not a valid religion and the closing of all Mosques in this Country.  What happened on that day; should have resulted in the deporting off all Muslims out of the United States forever and Arabs be given a choice, either embrace an American religion or leave.  However, because of the weakness of Bush or a desire to please all, President George W. Bush chose the easiest path possible.

My friends, 9/11 is a living testament to the fact that Multiculturalism does not, in fact work.  It is a lesson that the Far-Right people’s party in Switzerland is learning now, before it is too late.  America did not learn that lesson on 9/11; we simply went after just one group, instead of the entire flock of them.  This was the great mistake of America and is one that America will have live with for the rest of its existence.  If you think, that Muslims will not attack America again, you a very highly mistaken.  September 11, 2001 was the opening salvo in a war that will continue until the day that America realizes that Islam and its followers are not friends of America and will eventually destroy us from within, if we allow it.

The question is will we allow it?

Iran floats bogus charges against Pastor

Remember that Iranian Pastor I wrote about? Well, it seems Iran is really trying hard to kill this guy:

Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani will be put to death for several charges of rape and extortion, charges that differ greatly from his original sentence of apostasy, Iran’s semi-official Fars News agency reported Friday.

Gholomali Rezvani, the deputy governor of Gilan province, where Nadarkhani was tried and convicted, accused Western media of twisting the real story, referring to him as a “rapist.” A previous report from the news agency claimed he had committed several violent crimes, including repeated rape and extortion.

“His crime is not, as some claim, converting others to Christianity,” Rezvani told Fars. “He is guilty of security-related crimes.”

In a translated Iranian Supreme Court brief from 2010, however, the charge of apostasy is the only charge leveled against Nadarkhani.

“Mr. Youcef Nadarkhani, son of Byrom, 32-years old, married, born in Rasht in the state of Gilan is convicted of turning his back on Islam, the greatest religion the prophesy of Mohammad at the age of 19,” reads the brief.

via Iranian pastor faces death for rape, not apostasy – report – CNN.com.

So much for that Religion of tolerance, eh? If we cannot put you to death for trying to muscle in on our turf; we’ll fabricate false charges against you!

Of course, Iran is operating under Shariah law and if we are not really careful here in America, that crap will end up here.

Others: Israpundit, Weasel Zippers, Jihad Watch and americanthinker.com

Iran threatens US with warships

Looks like ol’ dinner jacket is looking for trouble….again

Via Reuters:

Iran raised the prospect on Tuesday of sending military ships close to the United States’ Atlantic coast, in what would be a major escalation of tensions between the long-standing adversaries.

“Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders,” the head of the Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Speaking at a ceremony marking the 31st anniversary of the start of the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, Sayyari gave no details of when such a deployment could happen or the number or type of vessels to be used.

The declaration comes just weeks after Turkey said it would host a NATO early warning radar system which will help spot missile threats from outside Europe, including potentially from Iran. The decision has angered Tehran which had enjoyed close relations with Ankara.

And it comes a few months after Iran sent warships through the Suez canal, after the fall of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the first time the Islamic Republic had deployed navy vessels in the Mediterranean.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to stop it getting nuclear weapons. Tehran denies it is developing nuclear arms saying its atomic program is for purely peaceful purposes.

Iran has dismissed the threats, warning that it will respond by hitting U.S. interests in the Gulf and Israel if any such attack happened.

There is a big part of me that wants to believe that this is nothing more than saber rattling.

Memo to Saudi Arabia: I support Ezra Levant too

Put that in your turban and smoke it, ya jack wagons… :mad:

Here’s the video: (H/T Blazing Cat Fur — Via Pamela Geller)

I know, I have had some rather terse choice words for Canada in the past. But I support Ezra Levant and freedom lovers like him everywhere.

I’m with ya Ezra; keep fighting the fight and I’ve got your six here man.